|
1
|
Bu Y, Feng L, Xu D, Zhang S, Liang L, Si J, Lu Y, Liu Q, Yan G, Wang Y, Lan G, Liang J. Changes in Gut Microbiota Associated with Parity in Large White Sows. Animals (Basel) 2023; 14:112. [PMID: 38200843 PMCID: PMC10778104 DOI: 10.3390/ani14010112] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/01/2023] [Revised: 12/20/2023] [Accepted: 12/21/2023] [Indexed: 01/12/2024] Open
Abstract
As one of the most critical economic traits, the litter performance of sows is influenced by their parity. Some studies have indicated a connection between the gut microbiota and the litter performance of animals. In this study, we examined litter performance in 1363 records of different parities of Large White sows. We observed a marked decline in TNB (Total Number Born) and NBH (Number of Healthy Born) We observed a marked decline in TNB (Total Number Born) and NBH (Number of Healthy Born) among sows with parity 7 or higher. To gain a deeper understanding of the potential role of gut microbiota in this phenomenon, we conducted 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing of fecal DNA from 263 Large White sows at different parities and compared the changes in their gut microbiota with increasing parity. The results revealed that in comparison to sows with a parity from one to six, sows with a parity of seven or higher exhibited decreased alpha diversity in their gut microbiota. There was an increased proportion of pathogenic bacteria (such as Enterobacteriaceae, Streptococcus, and Escherichia-Shigella) and a reduced proportion of SCFA-producing families (such as Ruminococcaceae), indicating signs of inflammatory aging. The decline in sow function may be one of the primary reasons for the reduction in their litter performance.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yage Bu
- College of Animal Science and Technology, Guangxi University, Nanning 530004, China; (Y.B.); (L.F.); (D.X.); (S.Z.); (L.L.); (J.S.); (Y.L.); (Q.L.); (G.Y.); (Y.W.); (G.L.)
| | - Lingli Feng
- College of Animal Science and Technology, Guangxi University, Nanning 530004, China; (Y.B.); (L.F.); (D.X.); (S.Z.); (L.L.); (J.S.); (Y.L.); (Q.L.); (G.Y.); (Y.W.); (G.L.)
| | - Di Xu
- College of Animal Science and Technology, Guangxi University, Nanning 530004, China; (Y.B.); (L.F.); (D.X.); (S.Z.); (L.L.); (J.S.); (Y.L.); (Q.L.); (G.Y.); (Y.W.); (G.L.)
| | - Shuai Zhang
- College of Animal Science and Technology, Guangxi University, Nanning 530004, China; (Y.B.); (L.F.); (D.X.); (S.Z.); (L.L.); (J.S.); (Y.L.); (Q.L.); (G.Y.); (Y.W.); (G.L.)
| | - Liang Liang
- College of Animal Science and Technology, Guangxi University, Nanning 530004, China; (Y.B.); (L.F.); (D.X.); (S.Z.); (L.L.); (J.S.); (Y.L.); (Q.L.); (G.Y.); (Y.W.); (G.L.)
| | - Jinglei Si
- College of Animal Science and Technology, Guangxi University, Nanning 530004, China; (Y.B.); (L.F.); (D.X.); (S.Z.); (L.L.); (J.S.); (Y.L.); (Q.L.); (G.Y.); (Y.W.); (G.L.)
- Guangxi State Farms Yongxin Animal Husbandry Group Co., Ltd., Nanning 530022, China
| | - Yujie Lu
- College of Animal Science and Technology, Guangxi University, Nanning 530004, China; (Y.B.); (L.F.); (D.X.); (S.Z.); (L.L.); (J.S.); (Y.L.); (Q.L.); (G.Y.); (Y.W.); (G.L.)
| | - Qiaoling Liu
- College of Animal Science and Technology, Guangxi University, Nanning 530004, China; (Y.B.); (L.F.); (D.X.); (S.Z.); (L.L.); (J.S.); (Y.L.); (Q.L.); (G.Y.); (Y.W.); (G.L.)
| | - Gang Yan
- College of Animal Science and Technology, Guangxi University, Nanning 530004, China; (Y.B.); (L.F.); (D.X.); (S.Z.); (L.L.); (J.S.); (Y.L.); (Q.L.); (G.Y.); (Y.W.); (G.L.)
| | - Yubin Wang
- College of Animal Science and Technology, Guangxi University, Nanning 530004, China; (Y.B.); (L.F.); (D.X.); (S.Z.); (L.L.); (J.S.); (Y.L.); (Q.L.); (G.Y.); (Y.W.); (G.L.)
| | - Ganqiu Lan
- College of Animal Science and Technology, Guangxi University, Nanning 530004, China; (Y.B.); (L.F.); (D.X.); (S.Z.); (L.L.); (J.S.); (Y.L.); (Q.L.); (G.Y.); (Y.W.); (G.L.)
| | - Jing Liang
- College of Animal Science and Technology, Guangxi University, Nanning 530004, China; (Y.B.); (L.F.); (D.X.); (S.Z.); (L.L.); (J.S.); (Y.L.); (Q.L.); (G.Y.); (Y.W.); (G.L.)
| |
Collapse
|
|
2
|
Nielsen SS, Alvarez J, Bicout DJ, Calistri P, Canali E, Drewe JA, Garin‐Bastuji B, Gonzales Rojas JL, Schmidt G, Herskin M, Michel V, Miranda Chueca MÁ, Mosbach‐Schulz O, Padalino B, Roberts HC, Stahl K, Velarde A, Viltrop A, Winckler C, Edwards S, Ivanova S, Leeb C, Wechsler B, Fabris C, Lima E, Mosbach‐Schulz O, Van der Stede Y, Vitali M, Spoolder H. Welfare of pigs on farm. EFSA J 2022; 20:e07421. [PMID: 36034323 PMCID: PMC9405538 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7421] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
Abstract
This scientific opinion focuses on the welfare of pigs on farm, and is based on literature and expert opinion. All pig categories were assessed: gilts and dry sows, farrowing and lactating sows, suckling piglets, weaners, rearing pigs and boars. The most relevant husbandry systems used in Europe are described. For each system, highly relevant welfare consequences were identified, as well as related animal-based measures (ABMs), and hazards leading to the welfare consequences. Moreover, measures to prevent or correct the hazards and/or mitigate the welfare consequences are recommended. Recommendations are also provided on quantitative or qualitative criteria to answer specific questions on the welfare of pigs related to tail biting and related to the European Citizen's Initiative 'End the Cage Age'. For example, the AHAW Panel recommends how to mitigate group stress when dry sows and gilts are grouped immediately after weaning or in early pregnancy. Results of a comparative qualitative assessment suggested that long-stemmed or long-cut straw, hay or haylage is the most suitable material for nest-building. A period of time will be needed for staff and animals to adapt to housing lactating sows and their piglets in farrowing pens (as opposed to crates) before achieving stable welfare outcomes. The panel recommends a minimum available space to the lactating sow to ensure piglet welfare (measured by live-born piglet mortality). Among the main risk factors for tail biting are space allowance, types of flooring, air quality, health status and diet composition, while weaning age was not associated directly with tail biting in later life. The relationship between the availability of space and growth rate, lying behaviour and tail biting in rearing pigs is quantified and presented. Finally, the panel suggests a set of ABMs to use at slaughter for monitoring on-farm welfare of cull sows and rearing pigs.
Collapse
|
|
3
|
Abstract
The rising prewean mortality rates in swine production are a great economic and production burden to the swine industry. The thermal environment for a piglet is commonly adapted to the piglet's specific needs with a key factor of surface area impacting all modes of heat transfer. The current standard for pig dimensions was originally accepted in 1968 and has yet to be updated with clear data from piglets during lactation. The objective of this study was to collect and evaluate the dimensions of body weight, length, height and width of piglets during lactation. Eight litters from geriatric sows (commercial cross breds) were utilized in this study with data collected every day from birth to weaning (23–32 days of age). The evaluation of the dimensions with effects of litter size and sex showed that sex of the piglet does not have a significant impact on dimensions while litter size does. The piglets in this study were smaller than the standard at birth, likely attributed to changes in genetics and an increase in total born. The results of this study showed a slight difference in dimension at the heavier weights to a study with nursery pigs however there are differences in genetics. The data and equations presented in this study will be valuable for the design of creep areas and supplemental heat sources to accommodate the size of modern piglets during lactation.
Collapse
|
|
4
|
Vande Pol KD, Laudwig AL, Gaines AM, Peterson BA, Shull CM, Ellis M. Effect of farrowing pen size on pre-weaning performance of piglets. Transl Anim Sci 2021; 5:txab123. [PMID: 34405135 PMCID: PMC8364435 DOI: 10.1093/tas/txab123] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/10/2021] [Accepted: 07/16/2021] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Litter sizes in commercial pig production have increased substantially over recent years; however, farrowing pen sizes have generally not changed over the same time period. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of farrowing pen size on piglet pre-weaning growth and mortality. Differences in pen size were created by varying the width of pens of the same length, increasing the creep area available to the piglets. The study used a total of 1,786 litters in a randomized complete block design to compare two farrowing pen size treatments (FPS): Standard (pen width 1.52 m) and Increased (pen width 1.68 m). Litter sizes were equalized across treatments (12.9 ± 1.95 piglets) at 24 h after birth using cross-fostering. Litter weights were collected at birth and weaning (21.3 ± 2.08 d); pre-weaning mortality was recorded. The experimental unit was the litter; models for statistical analysis included FPS and replicate. Farrowing pen size had no effect (P > 0.05) on litter size at birth (12.8 and 13.0 for the Standard and Increased FPS, respectively), after cross-fostering (12.9 for both treatments), or at weaning (11.2 and 11.3, respectively). There was no effect (P > 0.05) of FPS on total litter or average piglet weight at birth, after cross-fostering, and at weaning. These results suggest no benefit in piglet performance from increasing the width of farrowing pens. As litter sizes continue to increase in commercial production, further research is warranted to re-evaluate the impact of farrowing pen size on pre-weaning mortality.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Katherine D Vande Pol
- Department of Animal Science, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, IL 61801, USA
| | - Austin L Laudwig
- Department of Animal Science, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, IL 61801, USA
| | | | | | | | - Michael Ellis
- Department of Animal Science, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, IL 61801, USA
| |
Collapse
|
|
6
|
Farm Animals Are Long Away from Natural Behavior: Open Questions and Operative Consequences on Animal Welfare. Animals (Basel) 2021; 11:ani11030724. [PMID: 33800925 PMCID: PMC8001272 DOI: 10.3390/ani11030724] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/13/2021] [Revised: 03/03/2021] [Accepted: 03/05/2021] [Indexed: 01/05/2023] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Animal welfare is a very important issue. One of the tasks of researchers is to provide explanations and possible solutions to questions arising from non-experts. This work analyzes part of the extensive literature on relationships between selection and domestic, mainly farm, animals’ behavior and deals with some very important themes, such as the role of regulations, domestication, and selection. Abstract The concept of welfare applied to farm animals has undergone a remarkable evolution. The growing awareness of citizens pushes farmers to guarantee the highest possible level of welfare to their animals. New perspectives could be opened for animal welfare reasoning around the concept of domestic, especially farm, animals as partial human artifacts. Therefore, it is important to understand how much a particular behavior of a farm animal is far from the natural one of its ancestors. This paper is a contribution to better understand the role of genetics of the farm animals on their behavior. This means that the naïve approach to animal welfare regarding returning animals to their natural state should be challenged and that welfare assessment should be considered.
Collapse
|